The Ethical Reader in Ulysses - Sincronía

ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
The Ethical Reader in Ulysses
El lector de Ética en Ulises
Stephen W. Gilbert
Departamento de Letras Hispánicas
Universidad de Guadalajara
(México)
[email protected]
Recibido: 15/03/2016
Revisado: 15/03/2016
Aprobado: 24/04/2016
RESUMEN
Una teoría de la ironía propone que el entendimiento simultaneo de lo dicho y lo
no-dicho es característica de tanto la ironia textual como la ironía verbal. Juntar
esta teoría con unos conceptos de la estética de la recepción nos da una
descripción de la lectura ética de un momento en Ulises de James Joyce.
Palabras clave: James Joyce, Ulysses, teorías de la ironía, respuesta del lector,
teoría de la recepción.
ABSTRACT
One theory of irony proposes that the simultaneous apprehension of the said and
the unsaid is a characteristic of both verbal and textual irony. Joining this theory of
irony with certain concepts from reception theory, produces a description of an
ethical reading of one moment in James Joyce's Ulysses.
Keywords: James Joyce, Ulysses, theories of irony, reader response, reception
theory.
Any reader of Ulysses has experienced a series of changing attitudes towards
events in the text as he reads for a second time. The experience of a "second
reading" is various, of course. The purpose of this paper is to examine closely, using
one particular event of the text, the kinds of changes that a reader goes through as
196
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
he becomes increasingly aware of what exactly is happening in James Joyce’s
Ulysses. Irony, as experienced by readers of novels, offers an interesting point of
departure.
Theories of irony, as they have become increasingly more revealing of all
aspects of literary texts, will prove useful not only for recognition of local instances of
irony, as well as general or universal ironizing intentions of an author, but can be
combined with theories of reader response as part of a study of how a reader
proceeds from one understanding of the text to another understanding. The
aspects of theories of irony that will be most useful to this study involve the
difference between what is said (or “meant” in some traditions) and what is unsaid
(or “significant”). Even theories of verbal irony (largely the province of linguistics and
philosophy of language) begin with the distinction between text and interpreted
meaning. More specifically, many earlier theories of verbal irony (see Muecke for
examples) depend on the interpretation of relations between two propositions, as in
the classical definition of irony as anaphrasis, that is, saying one thing and meaning
the opposite: “Some critics have even said that irony is finally negative, so evident is
it that the first step in reading it is a resounding “no” and a pulling back [a
“distancing” of the reader from the text] to discover some possible way of making
sense that can replace the rejected nonsense” (Booth, 24).
What these theories have in common, but is not made explicit very often, is
that the unsaid is necessarily, in all cases, reconstructed by the reader, or hearer in
the case of verbal irony.
Wayne Booth speaks frequently of
“ironic
reconstruction,” and
the
hermeneutic distinction between “meaning” and “significance.” But he continually
returns to the stabilizing notion of authorial intention: “A decision must therefore be
made about the author’s knowledge or beliefs.... It is this decision about the
197
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
author’s own beliefs that entwines the interpretation of stable ironies so inescapably
in intentions” (Booth, 11).
I am going to argue that what we reconstruct, particularly in the case of
Joyce, is not so much the author’s intentions or beliefs, but the author’s knowledge.
Joyce is extremely careful to give us the knowledge necessary for a complete
reading of the events in his novel, but that knowledge is rarely found where a
reader of the traditional realist novel would normally look for it.
Theories of reader response enrich the discussion of ironic reconstruction.
Roman Ingarden, in 1960 (Das literarische Kunstwerk, tr. 1973), proposed that the
work of art is “concretised” by the reader, that the work always exists between two
poles, one artistic, created by the author, and the other, esthetic, created by the
reader. Wolfgang Iser describes it this way: “From this polarity it follows that the
literary work cannot be completely identical with the text, or with the realization of
the text, but in fact must lie halfway between the two” (Ingarden, 1974, 50). The
realization of the text, achieved by the process of concretization, is remarkably
similar to the process of the discovery, or creation, by the reader, of a text’s
“significance” which Booth incorporates into his theory of irony.
Booth claims that we determine the degree of stability (following his
categories of overt/covert and stable/unstable ironies) by establishing “how much
reason the reader has for thinking his immediate task completed once an asserted
irony has been understood or a covert irony has been reconstructed” (Ingarden,
234). Interestingly, the work we do in our example from Ulysses is done in stages. We
reconstruct a covert irony by realizing (later) that the Boylan who sends the card in
the morning is the Boylan who will pass an adulterous afternoon with Molly. Then,
retrospectively, we reconstruct Bloom’s collection of the mail from the floor to
include this information. But we have further work to do. We have to reconstruct
Bloom’s unsaid and under-described (preferable, I think, to the term covert)
198
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
reaction. The material realities surrounding the situation itself are only hinted at, and
even then only later in the text, as we become increasingly, and incrementally,
aware of Molly’s plans for the day.
Hugh Kenner (1987) describes this as a kind of attention that Joyce gives to
immediate experience. Perfectly aware of what his characters are doing and
where they are at every minute of the day, Joyce is equally aware of what they are
wearing or carrying in their pockets. And if he is writing the words that cross through
their minds, he will not succumb, as many a lesser writer does, to the temptation to
“sneak in” peripheral information that might be useful to a reader, but that would
be unnatural for Bloom or Stephen to be thinking. (A self-description at the mirror, for
instance). It is the experience of the character himself that Joyce captures, while
supplying the information the reader needs, but not in the order readers have
become used to.
Take a simple instance: Bloom, beginning his day’s various errands and
wanderings, “... crossed to the bright side, avoiding the loose cellarflap of number
seventyfive. The sun was nearing the steeple of George’s church. Be a warm day I
fancy. Specially in these black clothes feel it more. Black conducts, reflects,
(refracts, is it?), the heat. But I couldn’t go in that light suit. Make a picnic of it.”
(Kenner, 77)
The reader doesn’t know that Bloom is to attend a funeral later in the
morning. And nothing in the passage just cited would necessarily imply a funeral.
The reader does know that Boom is wearing black. And that he is going somewhere,
and that a black suit is appropriate, and that it is not a festive occasion. But there is
nothing in the passage that is not recognizably Bloom thinking.
The instance I would like to examine in some detail occurs earlier in the same
chapter. We have observed Mr. Bloom preparing breakfast for his wife, he has gone
199
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
to the butcher’s for a kidney, and on his return home finds the mail on the floor
inside the front door.
“Two letters and a card lay on the hallfloor. He stooped and gathered them.
Mrs Marion Bloom. His quick heart slowed at once. Bold hand. Mrs Marion.”
What the reader doesn’t know about these letters is almost everything. All we
may deduce at this point is that at least one of the letters is addressed to “Mrs
Marion Bloom” that the writing on the envelope is in a “bold hand” and that Bloom
reacts strongly (and rather oddly, it seems. Why should his heart slow?)
I am going to propose that an interesting reading of Ulysses results from
certain experiments with theories of irony and reader response theories. The two
theories have a great deal in common.
Now, what is happening in Ulysses? The history of Joyce criticism is instructive.
For the first forty years or so, the criticism was predominantly concerned with
exegesis. A great deal of effort was exerted in the exploration of parallels with
Homer's Odysseus (authorized by Joyce's collaboration with Stuart Gilbert.) And
then later, of course, we had to learn how to read the words that were actually on
the page. Thom’s Dublin directory for 1904 was a basic tool. Maps were consulted,
and the wanderings of various characters were plotted against Dublin streets and
landmarks. But quickly readers began to realize that the reconstruction of the city of
Dublin, the construction of timetables and the cross-referencing of locations and
activities of various characters constituted a kind of reading that we hadn’t had
much experience with in earlier novels. The realization that Stephen and Bloom
observe the same cloud in the sky at the same time of day came as a result of
multiple readings by multiple readers. The recognition that one of the early morning
swimmers, dressing after bathing at the men’s beach near Martello tower, is in fact
a priest (this is not confirmed until a few chapters later) strengthens the reading of
the first chapter as containing elements of a black mass.
200
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
A general conviction began to grow among careful readers of Ulysses that a
great deal of what is important in the novel is either unsaid, or revealed indirectly,
almost accidentally, in other parts of the novel. The information that a reader needs
to concretise the esthetic object is not where we normally find it. And, according to
Ingarden, and later Wolfgang Iser, it is regularly information that has to be placed in
conjunction with the artistic creation, that is, the text, in order for the esthetic object
even to come into existence.
Does this mean that the novel we read, when we read without the displaced
or the unsaid is something other than the esthetic object we create once we have
access to the (absent) information which it is necessary to place in conjunction with
the text? It seems that reading occurs in at least two stages, apprehension of the
artistic object, followed by collaboration in the creation of the aesthetic object. I
am going to propose, that at least in one example from Ulysses, that there is a third
stage of reading: the creation of an ethical reader.
The observations of Iser and Ingarden dwell on the immediate dualities
between reader and text: what the reader normally, almost intuitively does with
what Iser calls “apparently trival scenes.” He brings into play the “unwritten aspects”
and the “unspoken dialogue” of these scenes to explain how the reader is drawn
into the action, and becomes an active participant in the arena of imagination
outlined or gestured towards by the author. The reader completes the outlines
indicated by the author, supplying such mundane details as the color of a
character’s clothes, his physical posture, surrounding furniture, where these details
are not “filled out” by the author. And these details in turn become a more or less
permanent part of the text. Thus begins a dynamic process between limits imposed
by the text on its “unwritten implications” (Iser, 51).
It is against such a background that the examination of Bloom’s collection of
the day’s mail begins to reveal not only a depth of meaning, as a momentous part
201
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
of the day, but also an indication of the kinds of reading strategy that are called for
by Joyce’s control of the text.
For this is no ordinary phenomenological reading, described by Iser and
Ingarden as they build a theory that will reveal the reader’s relation to any fictional
narrative whatsoever. Ulysses is arguably one of the most completely controlled
texts of the twentieth century. Joyce is able to speak of the artist as one who, like
God, remains “behind, or above or beyond his creation, paring his fingernails” but
he is able to adopt that posture only because of his supreme, even arrogant
confidence that his reader has been given absolutely everything that is necessary
to participate completely in the play of imagination, following the rules (if he wants
the full value of the experience) that the artist has laid down. Thus talk of “clues”
supplied by the author is much more common with writers like Joyce (there are
others, Nabokov comes to mind) than with someone like Jane Austen or D.H.
Lawrence, for instance.
We don’t know until later. This is one of the most common strategies that
Joyce employs in his careful arrangements and manipulations of information. We
are able to read the novel, sort of, expecting that we are being given the
necessary information in the kind of order that other novels habitually follow. And
this is a most unsatisfactory reading, complained of by the early critics, calling the
novel “obscure,” or “fragmented”. And “later” is sometimes later in the novel, and
sometimes it refers to a second or even a third reading, often interpelated with
recourse to secondary texts. (Joyce was well aware that in Finnegans Wake he was
“giving the professors something to puzzle over for generations”)
It is a peculiar kind of doubleness, compared to the doubleness we observe
and make use of in the interpretations of irony. Usually, the reconstruction necessary
to interpret irony is in immediate relation to the text, not delayed, but simultaneously
present. Linda Hutcheon explores this kind of doubleness in persuasive terms in
202
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
Irony’s Edge: The Theory and Politics of Irony (Hutcheon, 1994). What she wants to
consider is “what might coccur if ironic meaning were seen to be constituted not
necessarily only by an either/or substitution of opposites by by both the said and the
unsaid working together to create something new” (Hutcheon, 63).
Hutcheon’s main concern is to argue that ironic meaning possesses three
major semantic characteristics: it is relational, inclusive and differential. By
“relational” she means that irony operates not only between meanings (the said,
and the unsaid) but between people, whose judgments give irony the critical edge
we so often recognize when we speak of irony’s victims, or the superiority of those
who share an ironic interpretation. We will return to this aspect of irony when we
consider the creation of ethical readings of Ulysses.
Irony is inclusive, in Hutcheon’s view, rather than simply antiphrastic, the result
of the simple substitution of the opposite meaning when an utterance is used
ironically. And the differential aspect of irony “offers an explanation of the
problematic kinship between irony and other tropes and forms such as metaphor
and allegory” (Hutcheon 58-9) (There are traditions in literary theory which regard
irony as an “instance of allegory’s double meaning”, or conversely, which regard
allegory as a supremely ironic mode of discourse. Hutcheon clarifies the difference:
“Allegory relies on an ‘aptly suggestive resemblance’ between the said and the
unsaid, while irony is always structured on a relation of difference”)
Hutcheon’s major contribution to the discussion of irony, it seems to me, is her
insistance in thinking of it as relational, “as the result of the bringing together of the
said and the unsaid, each of which takes on meaning only in relation to the other.”
(Hutcheon, 58) While she continues to view the unsaid as always more powerful, in
keeping with traditional theories (from Wayne Booth’s to Frederic Jameson’s), the
relational and inclusive nature of irony, in Hutcheon’s view, allows “a way to think
about ironic meaning as something in flux, and not fixed. It also implies a kind of
203
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
simultaneous perception of more than one meaning in order to create a third
composite (ironic) one.” (Hutcheon, 60) This means that the appreciation of irony
does not necessarily imply the rejection of one (literal) meaning to get at an “ironic”
or “real” meaning of an utterance.
Traditional interpretations of irony as the result of antiphrasis often disregard
the contextual nature of meaning. Grice’s theory of irony (1972), for instance, simply
supposes that the context of the utterance will not support an acceptance of the
literal meaning as the intended one; a meaning must be found which will fit the
immediate circumstance, and the opposite of the literal meaning is often a natural,
even a first choice in many instances. (And, of course, in many instances, this is
precisely what is intended.) But what happens if ironic meaning is constituted not
only by an either/or substitution of opposites but by both the said and the unsaid
working together? This is the question that Hutcheon pursues in her study.
Other theorists have struggled with the doubleness of discourse in various
ways (Harold Bloom 1975, Kenneth Burke 1969, Mijail Bajtin 1984), and most of them
propose certain descriptions of the kinds of relation two propositions, or utterances,
might have with each other: dialectic, dynamic, dialogical. Without taking sides,
and without trying too hard to characterize in much detail the nature of the
doubleness of irony, Hutcheon argues that the simultaneity of difference is key to
her theory, and the source of much of the pleasure we take in recognizing irony.
The particular moment in Ulysses when Bloom collects the morning mail from
the hall floor is recalled later in the morning. As he walks through the back garden
on his way to the jakes, he wonders, “Where is my hat by the way? Must have put it
back on the peg. Or hanging up on the floor. Funny I don’t remember that.
Hallstand too full. Four umbrellas, her raincloak. Picking up the letters” (Bloom, 68)
The first occurrence of the event, here recalled, occurred a full seven pages
204
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
previously. We are now in a position to reconstruct at least some of Bloom’s actions
at the moment of picking up the letters.
Did he leave his hat on the floor, or put it back on the peg? He seems to
supply an answer in the process of recalling. “Hallstand too full.” This is a reason he
gives himself for leaving his hat on the floor. We might imagine something different:
He enters his house, perhaps with his hat in his hand. Seeing letters on the hall floor,
he bends to pick them up. Recognizing Boylan’s “bold hand” on a letter addressed
to “Mrs Marion Bloom” (in strict disregard of required etiquette, the letter is
addressed as to a widow, instead of to Mrs. Leopold Bloom). His heart slows
(perhaps the result of the blood rushing to his head?) and, feeling faint, he reaches
out to support himself with a hand on the floor, leaving his hat there in the process.
And distracted by this evidence, or reminder, of his wife’s affair, he leaves his hat on
the floor, and is further distracted by her calling to him from upstairs, thus deprived
of any time to himself to compose his emotions.
We are now in possession of assumptions about Bloom’s emotional state.
These will interact in some kind of dynamic tension with our readings of the events of
the morning, and with the events of the rest of the day. They are assumptions which
will be tested against our observations of Bloom in his relations with other people as
he goes about the day’s activities, beginning with his wife, Molly. She calls him as
she hears him come in, and he enters the bedroom (perhaps tellingly, perhaps not
so, we do not accompany him up the stairs. What was he thinking as he carried this
letter to her?) “Who are the letters for?” she asks. “He looked at them. Mullingar.
Milly.” Perhaps looking for a way to answer her question without mentioning Boyle
(whose name, after all, does not appear in a return address on the letter to Molly,
although we are not told this specifically), he says, “A letter for me from Milly, he
said carefully, and a card to you. And a letter for you.”
205
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
There are a couple of ways we can read that word “carefully.” It is
wonderfully ambiguous. Either Bloom is being careful to avoid any first mention of
Boylan (although he will have to ask eventually), or he is being careful of Molly’s
feelings since he received a letter from their daughter Milly, and his wife received
only a card. One hesitates to ascribe to Bloom such fine feelings towards his wife at
such a moment, but as we come to know him, it becomes less impossible to
conceive of him as just such a man. Or, since we do not know him very well yet, he
may be “carefully” making sure that his wife knows that he got a letter while she
only got a card. This would be a cruel act, perhaps forgivable under the
circumstances, and we might want to decide at some point whether we think
Bloom is really capable of that kind of cruelty.
He turns to raise the blind on the window, letting the morning light into the
bedroom, giving Molly a moment to herself.
“Letting the blind up by gentle tugs halfway his backward eye saw her
glance at the letter and tuck it under her pillow.” There’s nothing particularly subtle
about Molly Bloom, or perhaps she just hasn’t had her tea yet.
While the early history of Ulysses criticism was related either to disparagement
of its obscurity, or to exegesis as an attempt to clarify its obscurities, recent criticism
(Kenner is one of the first Americans to move in this direction), has been able to
explore the nature of the reader’s interaction with the text. (The return of the reader
as a central component in literary theoretical discussions has its own interesting
history, see Terry Eagleton for a good example). Building extensively, and
advancing significantly, the work of Roman Ingarden, Wolfgang Iser sketches an
outline of the basic components involved in the relations between reader and text.
Iser argues that horizons (of expectation, or of an imagined world) are
created by, and are a part of, any reader’s interpretation of any utterance or
sentence; gaps exist between the utterance and a complete (or completely
206
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
imagined) world and must be “filled out” by a reader; the process of filling gaps
and establishing horizons constitutes the creation of a “virtual dimension” of a text,
which interacts fruitfully with its written, or literal, dimension. Memory plays a central
role: “Whatever we have read sinks into our memory and is foreshortened. It may
later be evoked again and set against a different background with the result that
the reader is enabled to develop hitherto unforeseeable connections” (Iser, 54). I
would add that the virtual dimension of a previously read text also constitutes a
memory that may be evoked by some future text, and used to enrich or change
the virtual dimension, or narrative world, which is thus continually under
construction.
We are now faced, it seems, with the possibility of combining parts of two
theories in the hopes of bringing them to bear on one small, albeit highly charged,
moment in Leopold Bloom’s morning. Certain parts of various theories of verbal and
textual irony, along with aspects of reader reception theory, lay a foundation for a
thorough characterization of what a reader might do, or be invited to do, by the
specific passages from Ulysses cited above.
At first reading of Bloom’s collection of the mail, we do nothing more than
supply the furniture necessary to understand the basics of the action. We supply the
opening of the door, the bending to pick up the mail, and Bloom’s ascent of the
stairs to the bedroom. We remember he is wearing black, and carrying a package
from the butcher’s, (which he may have carried to the kitchen before going
upstairs. Did he take a moment to himself in the kitchen?)
The importance of the letter increases as we observe Bloom’s reaction, and
Molly’s hiding of it under her pillow.
As Bloom wonders where his hat is, we reconstruct, with the minimal clue
"hanging up on the floor,” the confusion and disorientation that Bloom must have
felt on seeing the letter from Boylan.
207
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
And his comment, “Funny, I don’t remember that,” invites precisely the
complex ironic reading that Hutcheon wants to propose in place of the simple
anaphrasis. It is not funny of course, that Bloom was distracted and upset by the
arrival of Boylan’s letter, but is “funny” that he would not remember such an odd
thing as leaving his hat on the floor. The idea of “hanging” his hat on the floor is
funny in yet another sense, but to Bloom, and to us, only retrospectively.
Much of the world of Ulysses is constructed retrospectively. This explains, in
part, the ability of so many readers to take so much pleasure in Ulysses over so many
years. We read it over and over again, not just because it’s a particularly good
novel, but because we can, even, to an extent, because we have to.
And as we do, we come to know the characters, particularly Bloom, in ways
that are deeper, more personal, more intimate, than the ways of knowing that we
are used to as readers of realist fiction. Partly, of course, this is due to the technique
of the interior monologue. But as we have seen in this example, we are also able to
take responsibility for a fuller reconstruction, not only of events, or material aspects
of the character’s surroundings, but of his psychological state at a particular
moment, even of his moral character. And once we do that, we are bound to
make moral judgments about him. Judgments that are our own, not supplied in any
way by the author. Joyce himself, by all accounts, was incredibly judgemental
about his friends, but as the artist/god of creation, he reserves judgment about his
creatures. The reader finds himself in the company of a man (Bloom) who makes
ethical choices in matters small and great. And for some reason or another, we
don’t simply make a final moral judgment about Bloom. Perhaps it is our
participation in the reconstruction of his ethics that prevents such a final judgment.
Whatever the case, I suspect that many readers reach a point at which they find
themselves asking a question that occurs to readers of novels only rarely: “What
208
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]
ISSN: 1562-384X
Revista de Filosofía y Letras
Departamento de Filosofía / Departamento de Letras
Año XX. Número 70 Julio-Diciembre 2016
would I do? Would I behave as well, or as badly?” I think it’s a brave question, and I
think Ulysses is a brave book.
Works Cited
Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981), The Dialogic Imagination. trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist,
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.
Bloom, Harold (1961), A Map of Misreading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Booth, Wayne C. (1974), A Rhetoric of Irony. University of Chicago Press.
Burke, Kenneth (1969), A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Eagleton, Terry (1996), Introduction to Literary Theory. Blackwell.
Fish, Stanley (1990), Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the
Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies. Duke University Press.
Hutcheon, Linda (1994), Irony’s Edge. Routledge.
Iser, Wolfgang (1974), The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose
Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
_____________ (1978), The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
Kenner, Hugh (1987), Ulysses. Johns Hopkins UP.
Muecke, D.C. (1970), Irony. Critical Idiom Series, vol. 13. London: Methuen.
209
Sincronía
® Una edición del Departamento de Filosofía y Departamento de Letras de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx / [email protected]